12 November 2012 3:30 PM

Justice Denied - Our Worst Retreat since Dunkirk

In my Mail on Sunday column last Sunday (11th November) I promised a fuller account of the scandalous downgrading of serious crime by the authorities in England and Wales ( I have not made a similar analysis of Scotland, which has its own separate legal system, but suspect something similar will be under way there). What was most distressing was to receive several personal confirmations of police uninterest in pursuing quite serious matters. The use of so-called ‘restorative justice’ to negotiate a supposed reconciliation between criminal (or in value-free jargon ’offender’) and victim is a growing part of this array of devices to reduce pressure on prisons, massage crime figures downwards and give the illusion of action.

Here is what I have found.

This country has not seen such a retreat since Dunkirk. Prosecutors and Police are in headlong flight in the face of a flood of crime and disorder unseen in this country since the Victorian era. And, just as at Dunkirk, skilled propagandists seek to portray the defeat as a triumph.

For some time, I have scoffed at official figures claiming that crime was falling. It is plain to anybody outside the elite cocoon of money and power that such a claim must be garbage of a high order. But as always, when the state has a monopoly of information, it was hard to show where the flaw was. Now, thanks to the brave and astute action of the Magistrates Association, some light has been shone on this dark place.

The story is enormous. In 2008 Magistrates began to suspect that a falling workload in the Magistrates’ Courts was a national rather than just a local phenomenon. The Magistrates’ Association tried to find out what was really happening. They were of course told there was a reduction in crime . The published statistics, of course, supported that.

Rather than accept what they were told (as so many people gullibly and acquiescently do) the Magistrates launched their own inquiry, using the Freedom of Information Act.

I regret that much of the information here is three years old or more, but it has (to my embarrassment and regret) taken me that long to get on to this story, which has been hiding in plain sight for anyone to pick up. My excuse is that at the time it first surfaced briefly, I was travelling abroad a great deal. I suspect that more recent figures would be even worse. The rape total given in my article of 11th November (higher than the one shown below) results from figures obtained since this report was written.

Its origins lie deep in the Blair Government which in 2001 passed the Criminal Justice and Police Act, a gimmicky measure designed to give the illusion of action. Its effects - and, I would suspect, its purposes – were quite different. Suddenly the police no longer had to take cases to court if they thought them worthy of action. In return for an admission of guilt, they could deal with them through on-the-spot penalties, a gross break with English legal tradition and a direct contravention of the Bill of Rights of 1689, but then nobody’s heard of that nowadays.

I am not sure exactly when the increased use of so-called ‘cautions’ a form of letting off without trial, and also with only a minor criminal record, was put into law. But that has also grown enormously

In practice, huge numbers of the informal penalties are never paid, so they end up being not very different from cautions(or the even weaker ‘cannabis warning’ introduced without Parliament’s permission discussed here many times) . But there’s another crucial detail. Once an offence has been disposed of in this way *it cannot be reopened*. The wrongdoer can own up to it (thus receiving a fine he probably won’t pay and a small mark on his criminal record. After that, it cannot be raised again.

We shall see why this is significant. For all of what follows I am indebted to Richard Monkhouse and the Magistrates’ Association, whose sceptical, inquiring spirit and hard work have uncovered one of the most interesting stories of our time.

They actually managed to stop the previous government extending the scheme to even more offences, though I should expect the existing government or the Lab-Lib coalition which will be in office from May 2015 will be back for more in time. After all, if you can’t reduce the problem, you can at least reduce the statistics.

Their document refers to OCDs (this stands for ‘Out of Court Disposals’). At the time of the survey, these were used for just over half all offences (54%) and thus of course make nonsense of official ‘sentencing guidelines’ which apply only to cases which come to court.

They include : •

o Simple Caution

o Street Warning for Cannabis use

o Fixed Penalty Notices (FPN)

o Penalty Notices for Disorder (PND)

o Conditional Cautions

The document notes ‘…Magistrates were reporting serious concerns about the use of Out of Court Disposals (OCDs). At the Annual General Meeting [of the Magistrates’ Association] in Nov 2008 the following proposal was unanimously agreed :

‘This Annual General Meeting opposes the inappropriate use of out of court disposals. It contends that serious offences, including offences involving acts of violence, are being dealt with out of court to the detriment of the criminal justice system. It calls for the use of out of court disposals to be scrutinised to ensure that justice is being done and it urges the government to gather and publish detailed evidence on both the scale and consistency of use of such disposals in all areas of England and Wales.’

I quote again : ‘Magistrates Courts are open to the public, sentences are recorded and can be appealed, there is full scrutiny of the process, yet such disposals are not subject to such stringent procedure. In many cases there is a victim and they cannot receive compensation of a Caution, FPN or PND is administered - but they can in court. In addition almost 54% of FPNs [Fixed Penalty Notices] and PNDs [Penalty Notices for Disorder]are not paid and so come to court – but the court cannot deal with the original offence even if is a serious one. There is extra cost to the court system to administer the fine when the Home office has already had a budget for the process. Further the police are now accrediting non police officers to administer FPNS and PNDs and the government plans to extend the use of such disposal to Careless Driving.

The data indicates that the use of out of court disposals is neither consistent, transparent nor open to public scrutiny’

Remember, these are the words of Magistrates, responsible, concerned, sober, respectable people with no political axe to grind. I have seldom seen such strong feeling in a document from such a restrained group of people.

Some important figures follow. These are quoted directly. NB ‘ Summary Offences’ are less serious offences normally dealt with by magistrates. :

‘105,671 cautions were given for Summary Offences in 2007. Many of these seem appropriate and have not been shown below. The offences shown below, taken from Table S3.7 (B) Persons Cautioned For Summary Offences (Excluding Motoring) highlight offences where many cautions were given and for offences which if dealt with in court would be serious enough to consider at least a Community Penalty. These would therefore seem to be inappropriate for a number of reasons (victim, repeat offending, habit feeding, seriousness) :

England And Wales 2007 - Summary Offences

Assault: On Constable 3,264

Assault: Common, etc 52,465

Firearms Acts 519

Offence against Public Order 13,301

Interference with Motor Vehicles 281

Unauthorised Taking of a Conveyance 1,514

Summary Aggravated Vehicle Taking 191

Drunkenness, with Aggravation 3,981

Summary Criminal or Malicious Damage Offence 22,555 ‘

Then we have these figures (remember here that ‘Indictable Offences’ means ‘more severe offences which can be tried at Crown Court’)

Tables S3.7 (e & f) – (18 – 21 and over 21) have been added together to show Persons Cautioned For Indictable Offences (over 18) for 2007. This shows the following breakdown by indictable offence type.

Offence Group – Indictable Offences

Violence Against The Person 38,411

Sexual Offences 1310

Burglary 2497

Robbery 95

Theft And Handling 33,087

Fraud And Forgery 7,209

Criminal Damage 4,311

Drug Offences 34,967

Other Indictable Non-Motoring 8,005

Total Indictable Offences 129,892’

The report then goes into more detail, showing the kinds of offences which are not coming to court.

Clearly these offence types range from the less serious to the more serious.

Some of these could perhaps be explained by the original charge remaining on paperwork after an actual reduction in charge had been effected. However, it is illogical to assume that this is the explanation for all 129,892 indictable offences where cautions had been given.’

Next we move on to ‘Penalty Notices for Disorder’, a Blairite invention which is supposed to empower police to take immediate action.

‘6. Penalty Notices for Disorder

These are intended to be used for a set of specified offences. The following data shows these disposals for 2007.

DATA WARNING!

The original data sheet from which these figures came, offers caution. The data have been amalgamated from various individual forces’ data and they should not be regarded as definitive. This is understandable as the totals do not match the totals given in Table 1 (147,393), from the same source.

There is a 60,000 odd discrepancy with the figures below being the higher set of data and no explanation as to why these figures might be different. This shows that not only is the application of these disposals inconsistent but that the recording of such is also inconsistent.

England and Wales £80 tickets

DA01 Wasting police time 3,966

DA02 Misuse of public telecomm system 1,193

DA03 Giving false alarm to fire and rescue authority 96

DA04 Causing Harassment, alarm or distress 77,827

DA05 Throwing fireworks 649

DA06 Drunk and disorderly 46,996

DA11 Criminal Damage (under £500) 19,946

DA12 Theft (retail under £200) 45,146

DA13 Breach of fireworks curfew 39

DA14 Possession of category 4 firework 22

DA15 Possession by a person under 18 of adult firework 106

DA16 Sale of alcohol to drunken person 81

DA17 Supply of alcohol to person under 18 54

DA18 Sale of alcohol to person under 18 3,583

DA19 Purchase alcohol for person under 18 555

DA20 Purchase alcohol for person under 18 for consumption on premises 64

DA21 Delivery or allowing delivery of alcohol to person under 18 431

200,754

England and Wales £50 tickets

DB03 Trespass on a railway 1,527

DB04 Throwing stones at a train / railway 25

DB05 Drunk in a highway 2,066

DB07 Consumption of alcohol in public place 1,544

DB08 Depositing and leaving litter 1,374

DB12 Consumption of alcohol by under 18 on relevant premises 85

DB13 Allowing consumption of alcohol by under 18 on relevant premises 11

DB14 Buying or Attempting to buy alcohol by person under 18 158

TOTAL 6,790

Table 2

Few would disagree with many of these disposals, however Public Order, Criminal Damage and Theft offences, leave a victim and Theft, particularly shoplifting, is often used to feed a habit. These offences are often perpetrated by repeat offenders.

7. Additional Information

Magistrates are still reporting concerns. In the last week a report from a magistrate who had to deal with an offender who has been given a Fixed Penalty for a Public Order Offence for which the Sentencing Guideline is a custodial sentence. The issue of Possession of a bladed weapon has been subject of much debate yet 1,599 cautions were administered in the year up to March 2009 despite the Povey Judgement stating that such possession must receive a custodial sentence.’

The Association argued ‘Our main concerns are:

i. Out of court disposals undermine the public’s confidence in the criminal justice system as victims will not see the perpetrator of the offence against them dealt with in open court or will they find out the results of the sentence;

ii. Decisions are made in on the street, or in Police or CPS [Crown Prosecution Service]offices and not in open court thereby not safeguarding the rights of offenders and more importantly victims. There can also be delays in issuing the disposals;

iii. The rate of non-compliance is high - in the case of Fixed Penalties and Penalty Notices for Disorder in the order of just over 50%. In these cases they will then come to court but only as an offence, which is registered as a fine. The court cannot deal with the original offence no matter how serious or how long the offenders record. 35% of offenders given Conditional cautions not being charge after they failed to comply with conditions;

iv. The 50% unpaid FPNs [Fixed penalty Notices] and PNDs [Penalty Notices for Disorder] are registered with courts as fines, thus a drain on the HMCS [Her Majesty’s Court Service]budget which may not have been included in the budgeting forecasts. Should not a recharge then be made to the Home Office budget;

v. Out of court disposals were originally introduced for ‘low level offences’. Now used for violence, threat of violence, theft, obstructing police type offences which cannot be considered ‘low level’; For example 10% of Conditional Cautions have been used for Common Assault offences;

vi. Out of court disposals are driven by Police Forces wishing to meet targets and not the need to provide a safer community;

vii. However, some minor offences, for example shop lifting, can mask a more serious issue such as drug dependency. An out of court disposal will not tackle the underlying cause of the offending and add an unnecessary financial burden;

viii. There are significant differences between the police and CPS areas in the issuing of out of court disposals data is not available widely and therefore not open to public scrutiny or discussion;

ix. Solicitors are telling magistrates that police in some areas are now taking inappropriate action in many cases. In one area of Staffordshire, a solicitor has claimed that on average only two out of 12 suspects interviewed by the police are being charged. One or two may be being given a fixed penalty or caution, but the majority are being allowed to leave on the basis that there is insufficient evidence;

x. No detailed analysis, by either the criminal justice inspectorates, Home Office researchers, or independent researchers has so far been carried out to assess the scale and use of out of court disposals across England and Wales;

xi. Extensive net widening has occurred over recent years drawing in more young people and adults into the criminal justice system, mostly through the use of out of court disposals. It is not clear whether these are offenders who were previously able to offend with virtual impunity or is it the criminalisation of marginally criminal behaviour which in the past was dealt with through the application of various informal community sanctions. If the latter is the case then the net-widening may be counter-productive in terms of both crime prevention and public confidence;

xii. Full information on all out of court disposals is not being made available to Magistrates or Judges when they are sentencing defendants at a later date;

xiii. A fundamental principle of justice is that no one with any interest, whatever that might be, in the outcome of a case should be involved as judge or sentencer. Police investigate cases and charge individuals they therefore have a biased interest when it comes to sentencing;

xiv. Some out of court disposals do not require the offender to admit guilt. Police just have to be sure an offence has been committed;

xv. The offender may appreciate that it is not a conviction but may not realise that such disposals are recorded, can be cited in court and will be listed on CRB checks when applying for employment.

Almost six in ten shoplifters punished with £80 on-the-spot fines fail to pay them, official figures have revealed.

The figures were released in parliamentary answers to Tory justice spokesman Dominic Grieve. The breakdown given by Justice Minister Maria Eagle showed that, in 2007, 45,146 fixed penalties were handed out to shoplifters of goods worth less than £200. The number of fines unpaid was 26,035.

The fines are supposed to be paid within 21 days, and if no payment is made then a magistrates' court is supposed to levy a higher fine. But Miss Eagle said: 'The overall fine payment rate at court is 87 per cent. The courts' fine registration system cannot differentiate between those fines arising from unpaid penalty notices and any other fine.'

While the fact that 58 per cent ignore their tickets suggests that many offenders are getting away with their crimes scot-free, those who fail to pay should be given higher fines by a court, but there are no figures to show how many are later successfully punished by magistrates.’

************

I make no apology for publishing so much verbatim material from a highly trustworthy and well-regarded source. One of the great advantages of the Internet is the freedom it provides to go into far greater detail than is allowed by the pages of a newspaper or the brief minutes permitted to broadcasters.

The points I would make are these: Any criminal justice system is, in a sense, a form of street theatre. It is of course impossible (and undesirable) to prosecute formally every single case. I myself (to the shock of some) favour the police being allowed to inflict informal, unrecorded punishment on local troublemakers, as they used to.

But the changes recorded here are not of that sort. In these cases, offences which would once have come before the courts are being kept out of the courts. These are significant crimes, and they are happening in significant numbers. If our general disapproval of these actions cannot be expressed by public trial, conviction and sentence, and is instead reduced to something like a parking ticket, morally neutral and often unenforced, how many other comparable offences are not even being dealt with by the police? The higher we set the bar at which formal prosecution begins, the more crimes will go entirely unrecorded.

I would add that, now that the police and politicians are no longer co-operating to use increased crime as a reason for increased spending and recruitment, and while the government is claiming success in reducing crime as evidence of the ‘success’ of its policy, the pressure on officers to combine several offences into one, to keep them off the books through ‘restorative justice’ or to bargain (say) theft down to lost property is increasing, will increase, and ought to be diminished.

In the meantime, beware of all official statistics which are politically sensitive, from exam results to inflation figures.

I live on (street name redacted) in Dovecot and wanted to ask the opinion of representatives in my immediate area on this article and the subject report, especially given it's shocking revelations and in light of today's elections.

I would be interested in the thoughts of councillors and MPs in my area, hence my emailed request, however you have been the only person who has kindly replied.

In reply to Jerry Owen .
The first two tickets I succeeded in opposing were police ones and Magistrate courts . One mine, the other my daughter. Thus emboldened, I tried insurance companies. and the local council.
I lost the coucil one. but a point was made.
Since then almost all low range traffic policing in London has been handed to Transport for London . A Quango with authority ( not given by me or I guess the vast majority of Londoners) and power ,to penalise without any recourse to law. They even use an out of London Court Bailiff's to enforce payments.
A case of they use the courts, you cannot. So when paying the fine after first playing the game with futile appeals ( sometimes you may win) You must point out in writing when paying . " this is not an addmission of guilt .But payment to get you off my back. Keep a copy. Always keep a copy .
The fact its illegal to collect fines without recourse to the law . Makes even valid penalties illegal.
So its entirely up to the person whether they pursue it. personally I pay if in the wrong. The rareity being mostly the penalty is right .
But if an incoherent ,obscure entity like me, can and does take on these smokey dinner clubs as I describe them. Then what an opportunity for all those smart alecs out there who talk the talk, whilst sitting on their collective bum.

When A judge warned someone that taking the law into his own hands is illegal , He replied . Well judge whose hands should it be in . The law belongs to the people. Judges and their ilk are not the law, but servants of it. Their rights should be the same as others, as citizens or subjects.
And certainly Transport for London might think they are the law. but are not.
Today its not illegal to challenge any law and its impact on oneself , family member or friend. Everyone has the right to trial. Our Constitution demands it .

"I think when you refer to our 'responsible' politicians you are perhaps thinking too highly of them, or perhaps you are remembering some from a dim and distant past. They are careerists, in fact they are grubby immoral thieving criminals and liars in many cases."

I think you are probably correct. The word 'politician' is now a slur. It stands for all the things you wouldn't want to be - liar, cheat, deceiver, stabber-in-the-back, and much more besides. The theory of democracy translates to the practice of a sham. Every five years a coterie of charlatans presents itself for 'election'. They'll tell you anything you want to hear. Once 'elected' you will cease to exist.

The point of my post was to air my wonder at the consensus-on-the-street in this at least nominal democracy not being reflected in political policy. Thus no one wants these ghastly windmills littering what's left of our green and pleasant land, and everyone knows it's a scam, yet litter the countryside they do, and more are on their way. How in even a sham democracy does this happen?

Eighty percent of parliamentary business is the processing of EU directives that no one voted for. Is it even a sham democracy? Is it a democracy at all?

mikebarnes
You appear to have appealed many tickets with success, may I call on your services next time I get one?
However I disagree when you say pay the fine as it goes up in value then take the matter to the CC.
My experience is that if you pay the fine you have admitted guilt.

Stuart Winton,Those very short prison sentances might actually be a welcome break for some men,a chance to escape some loud and foul mouthed wife or girlfriend and catch up with some friends.
what on earth has become of this once proud and civilized country.

Jerry Owen,i agree with you about crime,and if true its quite shocking that half the crime is carried out in london,and i would guess almost the other half is carried out in the other major cities,i read once that Nottingham was the most violent city in Britain and that Dorset is the safest county.
There is only one solution in regards to crime and that is to build more prisons and run them in exactly the same way as they were during the 1950s.Countries in the far east must laugh when they see how crime is tackled today in Britain.

@ James Hodson.
You are rightly concerned sir, at this new affront to the average motorist. Of a new fixed penalty, amongst the many others . Mr Hitch makes a quick reference to this recently. concerning fixed price penalties. And further some time back last year on this newish phenomenon. and our constitutional law that forbids the taking of fines or forfitures until a trial before ones peers.
Now we can all understand the need to drive the justice system a little faster. And if one is justly caught infringing some law. Paying the fine quickly may get a reduction.
But today we see quango's set up to collect money by deciet . They are not part of the justice system but registered companies. The BBC use them for collecting licence monies not paid on the date due . The police use them in London for most traffic offences.
This might be fine and dandy . But if one feels the penalty is incorrect. The system in place for appeals is, for want of a better word illegal.
I, as a pensioner with time on my hands have managed to appeal six penalty notices. And am in the near future taking one particular quango to the small claims court for two outstanding tickets they refuse to talk about .
Using the 1698 bill of rights that demands a fair trial before fines can be levied. Its being used successfully more and more. So the argument it has fell into disuse, cannot apply. I would suggest all people that get penalty notices, that they find unjust should exhaust the procedure. If that still doesn't work. Pay the ticket ,as it rises in value. Then take out a county court small claim . It cheap, will waste a couple of hours of your time only. then your appeal for what ever reason, will be heard ,unlike the smoke filled secret room ajudicators. Which you have absolutely no access to.
If that fails the fact they used threats of greater forfitures against this clear written Constitutional Law forbiding it. Makes their case vexatious.
The 9 times out of 10 the monies lost will be repaid before the proceedings come to court. Basically for reasons that it becoming well known is not what they want. Just imagine if we all did that.

"@peter preston
How delightfully naive of you to think that writing to ones MP might have some effect. "

Kind of you to say so, sir. Much obliged!.
Whatever faith we may have in the influence of our MPs on those who rule us, surely it's at least worth a try. You never know, if enough people wrote to their MPs, even the ruling classes might just begin to take notice.
You might even write something suggesting that, if no representation of your views were to be subsequently detected, that MP could 'sing' for your vote the next time he or she might seek to persuade you to cast it for him or her.

On a related theme, and continuing on the parallels between Scotland and England, yesterday's lead story in the Scottish edition of the Daily Mail was headlined "PLEASE PUT US IN PRISON" and sub-titled "Criminals volunteer for soft-touch jails rather than pay a fine" (not online).

I suspect there's a bit of journalistic licence in the headlines, but basically the article was about the amount of fines written off because defaulters could avoid them by spending a couple of nights in jail or by performing as little as ten hours community service.

It says the typical sentence for non-payment is a week in jail. The automatic early release rules mean the sentence is halved to 3.5 days, plus human rights laws mean an inmate can't serve more than their sentence.

So they present themselves on Thursday morning, and thus must be released on Friday [presumably because the can't be released at the weekend for administrative reasons].

Voila, they can avoid a substantial fine for what the collator of the figures calls the equivalent of a "two-day sickie".

Politicians and others tweaking the criminal codes to suit their political objectives? A system that has become so politicized through political correctness that it no longer even cares to pretend to do the job it is employed to do? Or both of the above?

Kevin Carroll is a candidate for the upcoming Crime and Police Commissioner election in Bedfordshire. Mr Carroll has a grasp of what needs to be fixed and should be supported by all honest citizens.

Zero tolerance policing, including a clip across the ears or a kick up the arse when needed, has been discontinued by liberals who have never been victims to crime and have no idea how some in the society they control take advantage of any weakness in the criminal justice system, which sadly, has now become the criminal joke system and is mocked and abused by those who know they can get away with their crimes.

@Peter Preston.
Thank you for that response, sir, I am grateful.
I'm not sure where, in my post, I inferred that I expect Mr.Hitchens to do everything for me, but it's an interesting interpretation.
I am merely curious as to why Mr.Hitchens does not feel the need to suggest a direction which may lead to remedy.

I gained some insight in to his thinking on such matters today, when I read the transcript of his telephone interview with The American Spectator.The journalist Matthew Walther questioned Mr.H in regard to this, in the context of his book ' The War We Never Fought.'
I qoute our host's response here.

"There is no point in suggesting practical steps. It would be quite easy do, but I have no influence whatsoever upon mainstream politics in this country. All I'm doing now is recording my nation's decline so that when it finally sinks giggling into the sea people will be able to read what actually happened."

If I had read this statement before I made the contribution we are presently discussing, I would have realised that my point is utterly superfluous.

The rather condescendingly phrased advice you gave me, to write to my M.P.about this issue, is rather late.
I have already emailed him with a link to Mr.Hitchens' fine report.
I am looking forward to receiving his standard anodyne reassurances, if he bothers to reply at all.

Paul P
I think when you refer to our 'responsible' politicians you are perhaps thinking too highly of them, or perhaps you are remembering some from a dim and distant past.
They are careerists, in fact they are grubby immoral thieving criminals and liars in many cases.
You then have the stupid such as... is it Noreen Nadine somebody or other that has b*ggered of to a celebrity thing abroad whilst she is a sitting MP.
Still if the public vote for them it must be democratic and fair to be run by the above people that think a sea of windmills blighting our green and pleasant land that don't work when it is too windy, and don't work when it isn't makes sense over a dozen or so nuclear power plants.

I read somewhere several months ago that about 50% of all crime in Britain is carried out In London. Unfortunately I can't remember my source but I remember thinking at the time it was a reliable source.
I suspect the shires and places like where I live crime is very low still.
We live in a country of many differing facets, hamlets villages and small towns, and our enormous over populated cities (and larger towns) especially London.
Crime will increase more and more as the poor get poorer and larger as a group, as clearly if you have no money or property the courts cannot touch you, and of course as we know prison isn't an option.
The criminal underclasses have known this for decades. They are juust more brazen now.
So it's a self perpetuating problem, to solve the problem we really need to refigure where our taxes are spent to start with, law and order needs to be just that, and stopping the explosion in the population is a must. However just these three issues discussed sensibly would highlight the enormous gulf between those on the sensible logical right and those on the welfare supporting anti capitalist , 'all are welcome here brigade' ie many in the establishment.
I think the older you are the more obvious the increase in crime is as our young in the cities are used to high levels of crime and probably accept it and try to avoid being caught up in it...ie streetwise, something I am only just getting savvy with at half a century old.

I read recently, possibly in the Daily Mail, a piece about the possible introduction of "pay to drive". Paying to drive could well be the way to go.

However, also mentioned in the article was a section about the suggested sanctions for not paying the correct toll for the journey.

It was suggested that a failure to have the correct mobile technology ("Show me your papers!") would result in a fine. Fine, indeed - not!

The scary thing is that any appeal against such a fine would be considered only when the 'on the street' - surely an admission of guilt - had already been paid.

Essentially, a police officer, not on foot (aka a police officer), would act as the detector of a possible offence, the body that accuses the individual, the person that decides on guilt, and also decides in the sanction.

".... Mr.HItchens here demonstrates his genius for identifying depressing details of the abyss in to which our decadent society has fallen.
Regrettably, he makes no effort to dispense any wisdom which may point to a practical solution."

Well, do you expect Mr Hitchens to do everything for you, sir or madam?
Is it rocket-science to think of writing to some person with more influence than yourself - your MP perhaps - about it?
Your MP is supposed to represent you, after all

Retreat - over the last few years the penalty for muder in the first- has mostly gone up . With a tarrif of not 14/15 years must be served but 20- to 30 years. No doubt this has led to the recent decline in the murder rate. Yes a few executions and it would go down even more. Unfortunatly of membership of the EU prohibits the death penalty.
Five rapes, the original figure given was fifty, dealt with by a caution . Where these actually rape as people and law would have held it to be in the 1950s or even a decade ago. ?
The Magistrates Association is always touting for extra work . Frequently seeking to advocate more cases where people can not elect for trial by jury.
Dunkirk - ? a bit over the top. At least in mythology if not fact the country faced invasion and subjection to an evil idiology. Even if crime did go up -it only wrecks the lives of its victms. From GBH, Rape, Burgerly and so on . A future goverment could reverse this. Not so the consequences of mass immigration - both population increase and population replacement. The stats are some 250,000 people leave each year and 500,000 people arrive mostly in England one of the most densely populated places on the planet.
Unfortunatly , as demonstrated by recent cases, the magistrates are at the forefront of the states intention to intimidate the English people into silence about the deconstruction of their country. Crime wrecks individual lives- mass immigration will wreck England.

I think we all accept our governance tell lies damned lies. then produces statistics.
Well there we have it . in black and white. Not just Mr Slippery either, but something thats been happening for yonks. What else have they lied about . Immigration yes, banking yes. fiddling expenses yes .
But we still return them to power. How gross is that. Perhaps we all need a caution, for aiding and abetting this massive lie, before, during, and after the fact .

This is Peter Hitchens at his best. No science, no moralising - just dogged investigative journalism that has uncovered the biggest national scandal since MP's expenses. I do hope he does not let this rest.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.